Contrastive rhetoric

CONCLUSION FOR THE SECOND CHAPTER 
To go back to Matsuda and Atkinson
92
, who were quoted at the beginning of 
this paper, given CR/IR roots in pedagogy and practical issues, it is perhaps not 
surprising that the theoretical dimensions to the field have been underdeveloped. 
Recently there has been some attempt to address this through more critical 
approaches to culture and context through work by Atkinson and Connor among 
others. In particular, the move from contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric 
suggests a greater awareness of the intercultural nature of much of the 
communication studied in the field. However, this paper has argued that this has 
not gone far enough. This intercultural dimension entails a paradigm shift with 
recognition of the dynamism, complexity and fluidity of cultures and 
communicative practices. National cultures, as traditionally used in CR studies, 
may be present but equally they may not. For research it therefore follows that they 
should not form the baseline for the analysis of texts; rather cultures, both large 
and small, should be considered only when they are thought to be of relevance to 
understanding texts. Crucially, when cultures are used to interpret texts, the 
ideological dimensions of cultural constructions need to be acknowledged. 
The type of research undertaken in ELF offers a productive approach 
following such tenets. The removal of the native speaker/native culture model in 
ELF studies reveals a view of language and communication that is not possible 
through other lenses. For pedagogy, the consequence of this is that the rhetorical 
conventions of texts and genres should be viewed as constructs that are dynamic, 
changeable and hence negotiable and adaptable. This will involve the teaching of 
composition as more complex and less certain but also more empowering with 
learners having greater agency. However, it must be noted that the extent to which 
92
Matsuda, P., & Atkinson, D. (2008). A conversation on contrastive rhetoric. In U. Connor, Nagelhout, E., 
Rozycki, W. (Ed.), 
Contrastive Rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric
(pp. 277-298). Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. 

---

65 
the rhetorical construction of texts are negotiable may be controversial and careful 
research is needed to establish how pedagogic practice can best help learners of 
writing. CR/IR has encouraged debate from the beginning which has led to a 
number of evolutions in the field and perhaps because of this CR/IR has remained 
a vital part to L2 writing pedagogic research. This paper, through alternative 
theorisations of cultures and the intercultural, attempts to contribute to and sustain 
the debates in the hope that IR will continue to be of relevance to L2 writing 
research and pedagogy. 

---

66